Playtesting RA 6.0

[John 3rd]

For those who have followed the Reluctant Admiral Mod, a new version (6.0) has been in the works for quite some time. The files have been sent to playtesters and interested helpers of this project. This is what was said within the email:


Greetings all.

I want to thank those who have volunteered to look through the Mod as well as the Playtesters for 6.0. JWE: I have included you do to all your dedicated work helping with this long-term project.

This is what I need from you:
1. Load the game and play several turns. See if there are issues with the very beginning. The Japanese side is most important as I am not sure if there is enough shipping for the historical lifts of Dec 7th. The Allied side has a lot more ships in it starting throughout the South Pacific and DEI. Are they TOO much or OK?
2. Look for art issues. I already know there is not a piece of art for CLV Charlotte. Am working on that... Is there anything else missing?
3. There are all sorts of conversion possibilities throughout the Allied/Japanese side. DO THEM to make sure they work. I will Post the actual conversion list on the new Thread ‘RA 6.0 Playtesting.’
4. How do the new garrison requirements in CBI work?
5. ANY other issues that crop up or you have questions on...

I want a freewheeling and open conversation. Really don’t want to HAVE to do any major corrections that should have been caught here!

While you guys are prowling around in the Mod I shall work on the special artwork made by SuluSea for the Allied/Japanese loading pages, a new scenario description, and a DETAILED history of the this alternative Mod.

Questions?

I will send a second email containing JWE’s work to slow down movement in the CBI.

GOOD LUCK and THANKS!
John



6.0 is a real pulling back of Japanese capabilities from the most recent release. It was FatR and I's view that we had gone too far for Japan. THIS new version really adds some interesting twists and turns for BOTH sides. The Allies get lots of new play things at the start and the Japanese are much closer to an actual IRL Dec 7th start.

It should be interesting to watch. Let the playing and commentary COMMENSE!

[Adolf Galland]

FIRST Impression

- cve shinyo is missing the 100/65mm
- 40 mm Type 3 range 5000 ?
- IJN submarine ST class build rate 22 and the STS class have Buildrate by 23, the STS have 300 tonnage the ST Class over 1000 tonnage
- to many valueless subcaser by the IJN
- ise class have not a hybrid path
- the Old IJNcruiser iwate etc... have short 20 cm guns ?
- no path for the IJN old CL cruiser to CLAA cruiser
- Furutaka and aoba class carry the old 12cm/45 we need a simpel upgrade to 100/65mm
- Kawachi class to underarmored for tonnage and year of Build... Kawachi replace the Kongo Class, better is the Kongo class replace the Kawachi class.
- Nagato class all light flak...on RS side
- France Algiere class data not correct

[John 3rd]

Great! Keep looking...

[John 3rd]

FIXED:
1. Nagato AA Issues
2. Placed Long Lances back on Kawachi. Remember this class is built as CB--NOT BC--it is the Japanese version of the Pocket Battleship--Alaska Class.
3. 100/65 is on Shinyo. Are you sure there is an issue?
4. AA ranges set by DBB scenario.
5. Will work on Ise issues.
6. Added 3.9" to upgrades on Aoba--Furutaka.

We spoke once before about allowing a CAAA possibility for the Aoba--Furutaka Classes. Discussion was to eliminate the rear 8" turret and replace with more 3.9" AA. Any thoughts there?

What is wrong with the Algerie?

[John 3rd]

Finishing the list shows me:
1. The old CLs do have an AA Conversion path/option.
2. The same can be said for BOTH Fuso and Ise Class to that of the FP carrying option.

[Adolf Galland]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FIXED:
1. Nagato AA Issues
2. Placed Long Lances back on Kawachi. Remember this class is built as CB--NOT BC--it is the Japanese version of the Pocket Battleship--Alaska Class.
3. 100/65 is on Shinyo. Are you sure there is an issue?
4. AA ranges set by DBB scenario.
5. Will work on Ise issues.
6. Added 3.9" to upgrades on Aoba--Furutaka.

We spoke once before about allowing a CAAA possibility for the Aoba--Furutaka Classes. Discussion was to eliminate the rear 8" turret and replace with more 3.9" AA. Any thoughts there?

What is wrong with the Algerie?

Kawachi Class endurance 8000... Deutschland Klasse 21.500 sm by 10 kn.
i think for a pocketbattelship is the endurance by the Kawachi class very short.

We spoke once before about allowing a CAAA possibility for the Aoba--Furutaka Classes. Discussion was to eliminate the rear 8" turret and replace with more 3.9" AA. Any thoughts there?

my idea is a heavy AA Cruiser all 20 cm Turret replace by 100/65mm the example (Atlanta Class)
a mid 44 refit ? a possible refit a path for defence player, offensive player can hold the 8" guns....

[John 3rd]

You mean...like THIS! Just created this based on a tentative design I found on the web. Raised tonnage by 300 and lowered speed from 33 to 31.

[Adolf Galland]

What is wrong with the Algerie?

for a 12000 tonnage cruiser is she extremely good armored durabilty is 37...

durabilty 50 - 60 is realistic

[Adolf Galland]

You mean...like THIS! Just created this based on a tentative design I found on the web. Raised tonnage by 300 and lowered speed from 33 to 31.

yes this refit is nice ...

[DOCUP]

Does the new map go into the art folder? I am not a computer whiz here.

[John 3rd]

I KNOW what you are talking about!

Just bumped up the 'Creating a Mod Folder' Thread I made a while ago for people doing an install. It is in the War Room. Should help...

[Cpt Sherwood]

Deleted

[John 3rd]

Fixed: Same production rate as the B-25J1---15 planes/month.

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: Adolf Galland

What is wrong with the Algerie?

for a 12000 tonnage cruiser is she extremely good armored durabilty is 37...

durabilty 50 - 60 is realistic

A value between 42 to 44 is more realistic if we compare to London class CA.
My 37 may be a little bit low.

John what is your opinion ?

[John 3rd]

I concur. Will get into the files this morning and raise it. What do you think works?

[Terminus]

The Algerie was kinda flimsy. They had no tonnage for armour at all.

[John 3rd]

Do you have a suggestion Mr. Terminus?

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

ORIGINAL: Adolf Galland

What is wrong with the Algerie?

for a 12000 tonnage cruiser is she extremely good armored durabilty is 37...

durabilty 50 - 60 is realistic

A value between 42 to 44 is more realistic if we compare to London class CA.
My 37 may be a little bit low.

John what is your opinion ?

The game's warship tonnages are all expressed in "standard" tonnage. So Algerie should be 10,000 (10,160 tonnes). Warship durability is calculated as somewhere between 3.85 and 4 x game tonnage/1000. So Algerie should be somewhere around 39 or 40. That will make her consistent with all the other CAs. [:)]

Ciao. JWE

[John 3rd]

Thanks John!

[Cpt Sherwood]

The 3 USN and 2 USM training air units do not have the trainer box checked. They are just regular air units with the word training in the name field. The USN ones are set as CV Trained and the USM are set as Replenishment and CV trained.